Rescued by ‘exceptional skill’ – but did Brighton receive a fair penalty call?

Charalampos Kostoulas will undoubtedly remember this moment for the rest of his life. The 18-year-old Greek forward executed a stunning overhead kick in stoppage time, marking a memorable way to score his first goal at the Amex Stadium for Brighton.

The substitute, who joined from Olympiakos for a fee of £29.78 million during the summer transfer window, found the net just when it seemed all hope was lost for the Seagulls. They were trailing Bournemouth due to a controversial penalty awarded in the first half.

Brighton’s manager, Fabian Hurzeler, expressed his admiration for his young star but remained frustrated about the penalty decision that allowed Marcus Tavernier to equalize. After a review by the video assistant referee (VAR), it was determined that goalkeeper Bart Verbruggen had fouled Amine Adli.

Hurzeler stated, “It was a great goal. We all know his potential. However, we all prefer a victory.” When questioned about the penalty, he responded, “No. It’s challenging to communicate with referees. They have their perspectives, and it’s difficult to have a dialogue with them. We must accept their decisions even if we disagree.”

He further elaborated, “A mere touch and contact shouldn’t suffice for a foul, as the referees informed us at the beginning of the season. Yet, in some instances, they seem to disregard this. Contact doesn’t equate to a foul, and while there was some contact here, it doesn’t constitute a foul. It simply doesn’t make sense.”

Kostoulas, an Under-21 international for Greece, made his professional debut in 2024 after progressing through the Olympiakos academy, scoring seven goals in 22 league matches last season. If an additional £1.7 million is triggered during his time at Brighton, it would set a record for a Greek player’s transfer.

Since joining Brighton, he has played in 17 matches and netted twice, with captain Lewis Dunk praising him as a “remarkable talent.” Dunk commented, “I’ve seen him score even better during training, but that was phenomenal. You’ve witnessed glimpses of his ability, and there’s much more to come. He’s adjusting to a new country and league, and this performance showcases his potential.”

Why Was the Penalty Given?

The incident unfolded around the 30-minute mark when Bournemouth’s Adli was initially booked for simulation by referee Paul Tierney after he fell following a challenge from goalkeeper Verbruggen. However, upon a recommendation from VAR official Jarred Gillett, Tierney reviewed the incident on the pitchside monitor, reversed his decision, and awarded a penalty due to confirmed contact.

Tavernier calmly converted the penalty, giving Bournemouth an early lead that appeared to secure them the win until Kostoulas’s late intervention. Replays indicated that Verbruggen made slight contact with his high foot, yet with the ball seemingly drifting away, Brighton’s staff, players, and supporters were outraged by the ruling.

This came after a weekend where Arsenal expressed their fury over not receiving a penalty, and Manchester City were left frustrated that Diogo Dalot was not sent off during their derby defeat. The penalty decision quickly became the focal point of conversation on Monday night.

Bournemouth’s manager, Andoni Iraola, stood by the decision, stating, “Upon seeing the replay, Verbruggen lifted his leg significantly and made contact with Amine. Therefore, I anticipated the decision.”

Former Arsenal striker Thierry Henry shared his thoughts on Sky Sports, asserting, “That is indeed a penalty. When you raise your leg while making contact with the player, the ball is still in play. Regardless of whether he can reach it or not, it remains active. In today’s game, as we all know, such situations are often examined in slow motion, and the penalty was awarded. Arguing whether it was a penalty or not could have been avoided, as the contact is clear.”

Ex-Liverpool defender Jamie Carragher added, “These kinds of penalties would likely not have been awarded a decade ago. The ball was still in play, and the contact is apparent. Adli would not have reached the ball.”

Rising VAR Errors

The number of VAR mistakes has surged during the first half of the Premier League season. Data from the Premier League’s Key Match Incidents (KMI) Panel indicates a 30% increase in errors from 10 to 13 compared to the previous season. Nonetheless, this still represents an improvement over previous years, where there were 20 errors at the same stage during the 2023-24 campaign and 23 in the 2022-23 season.

Analysis: ‘Clear and Obvious?’

Brighton may be questioning the clarity of the VAR decision concerning Bournemouth’s penalty. If referee Tierney had initially identified the contact between Verbruggen and Adli and indicated ‘no penalty,’ it is unlikely there would have been a pitchside review. His interpretation would have been a valid one.

The VAR’s intervention stemmed from Tierney’s incorrect initial booking of the Bournemouth forward for simulation, which opened the possibility for a review. However, the VAR still had to ascertain that the contact warranted a penalty. There is an argument to be made that the contact was minimal and insufficient for Adli to fall.

Furthermore, the nature of Verbruggen’s challenge was irregular, with a high boot making contact with Adli’s thigh after he had already bypassed the goalkeeper. The fact that Adli may not have been able to maintain possession of the ball does not factor in; only that the ball was in play when the contact occurred.

Public Reactions

Fans have voiced their opinions on the contentious decision.

• Sam, Brighton:“Terrible decision to overturn, barely touched him and he was already going down. Embarrassing from the referee and VAR.”
• Simeon, Woking:“Another week, another poor VAR decision – Get rid!”
• Russ, Upton:“Football’s just not worth watching anymore, is it? Why has the referee changed his mind about that penalty? The striker isn’t getting a shot off, isn’t reaching the ball, and the contact wasn’t enough to bring him down! When referees are poor, having more of them only complicates things!”
• Phil, Toronto:“The issue is with what constitutes clear and obvious. Any minute infringement now seems to be classified as clear and obvious. While technology can assist with matters such as the ball crossing the goal line or semi-automated offside, the referee is in the best position to make calls on tackles and handballs. Any time players are left waiting, it certainly isn’t clear and obvious…”
• Tom, Innsbruck:“Enough with this ‘there was contact’ excuse. Does the player go down because he is genuinely fouled, or does he simply fall the moment he is touched? Football is turning into a sport for divers.”